I have to say I think some of you are underestimating how much of an effect the court speed had to do with this match. There's a reason there used to be so much of an uproar in the 90s during Sampras' hey day about the "big servers from hell" taking over and ruining the game with their one-two point strokes at most service games on grass and indoors.
Nowadays you never hear that complaint. Roddick and Ivo's serves in Sampras' era would have been VERY scary things to deal with.
Also, I think you're underestimating just how much of more difficult returning a serve is when you can't read the direction. Just look at why McEnroe on a good serving day today can still give great recently retired tour players absolute fits.
I really think there's something to the extreme shoulder turn, back to the side of the court, motion employed by Sampras and McEnroe that makes it MUCH tougher to read. I say this from experience after playing around with a former fringe tour player who had the EXACT same kind of motion. Man, what a serve that guy had (too bad, that's *all* he had along with his volleys otherwise he would've done better)! Without a doubt the hardest serve I've ever tried to return, but it WASN'T because of the pace or spin necessarily. Sure, there was definitely a lot of pace and spin, but the big difference between his serve and other big servers I've faced was that I absolutely could not read his serve AT ALL. All I saw were the side of his shoulders, and then bam it was *somewhere* and I was either there or it wasn't. Personally, I tend to think that this style of motion limits your max *possible* mph (I think Sampras' is the max pace you can achieve with this style of motion) vs. a more squared off stance, but it gives the best overall combination of spin, speed, and most of all DISGUISE.
It's a ton harder to return a 127 serve down the T than a 140 serve down the T in my opinion when you don't know that the 127 serve's going down the T but you do know the 140 serve's going down the T. After all, a 127 serve may not be quite 140, but what is it a snail lubricating himself in heat? Man, that's still PLENTY face to get ace someone.
This is why Federer's serve, a more toned down, version of the Sampras style serve is very effective despite not having quite the spin or mph of others. It's the disguise of this style motion that makes it a winner in my opinion.
Remember, Goran last years whooped Bruguera's behind on clay and afterward said he couldn't believe how well he played, because it was the best he had played in years...not since he won Wimbledon had he had played that well he said.
Lightning strikes folks, and former top players didn't get there for no reason. The difference when they get older is that they can't *count on* playing well anymore. It kind of just happens when it does. That's why Sampras even after training seriously again for the Fed matches, said he didn't really know what to expect about how well he'd play.
I bet almost anything, that the seniors tour players have random days during the course of their "season" when they go WOW! I feel like I'm 20 again!
The problem is that it *doesn't last* anymore for them. The next day, after Goran said he couldn't believe how well he played? ...he lost EASILY to none other than the great mope-a-dope stategest himself, the laconic one, Cedric Pioline.
THAT'S the problem, not that these guys can't play anymore. Bruguera's dad runs a top academy, it's not like he's not around the game anymore when he said that the way Goran served on *this* day was better than anyone on tour. What's changed? In my opinion, not much. Goran on a good serving day, even on clay, was pretty much unreturnable during his hey day so why should that change now?
Bruguera himself said when asked about his good form on the seniors tour possibly coaxing him into a comeback, he said, no it's not about that. He said the problem's not that we can't play anymore, it's that we don't want to basically, at least, not that intensely anymore. The difference that is night and day is the intensity, the full-time training, etc. NOT ability.
He said that yeah sure, on the seniors tour you can have a great day or two here or there, but to duplicate on tour requires so much more because it truly is a day in/day out proposition.
Look at Rios, when he got hot on the seniors tour, Goran was saying that the way he's playing now he could still be a top player. But the problem is not that he can't play good here and there, it's will the body AND mind hold up. That's why he went into hibernation with injuries, then out of nowhere, played top level tennis again against Agassi at the Liption...before, gasp, AGAIN, his body failed him again. THAT is the difference folks. The tour is a grind, BIG TIME.
Joachim Johansson managed to plop himself back to tour level several times off and on, before finally he just gave up, because of the injuries. It's not that he can't still play high level tennis, EVEN AFTER *repeated* injury layoffs, it's that his body just can't take the GRIND of *day-in, day-out* practicing/playing/training, etc. that being a pro WITH A DAY JOB JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE requires.
A person can be a great worker, but if he only shows up once or twice a week, and takes weeks, sometimes even months, off at a time sometimes, does that matter? No, of course, not. I don't see why it should be any different for the pros.
Bruguera *beat* Johansson by the way indoors in a "gimic" exhibition recently. Scripted? A gimic? Etc.? Yeah, sure, but had Johansson won then all the doubters would be saying, see I told you so. It goes both ways.
In my opinion, the old guys can still play...just not *that often*. And to that, I can only say, sadly and with regret...to one of the few "modern" tour players I actually liked to watch and root for...Joachim Johansson? Joachim Johansson, welcome to the club.
